Remember it's baby boomers who populate the majority of seats in Congress. Of course they voted to pay themselves while bankrupting you.

I keep seeing this meme. Who in the world would forgo their own salary while trying to resolve their organization's financial problems? Does anyone here wish to volunteer? I thought so.

If Congress were to not pay itself, it would have to rely on outside sources for its members' income. Outside sources such as....lobbyists. It's bad enough these politicians get bought off, but you want them to subsist outright on favors and under-the-table money? Really? That's your answer?

Girion47:SacriliciousBeerSwiller: We as a society need to stop being such massive pricks to two groups: people with kids, and the elderly. The latter, because "respecting your elders" is a time tested tradition. We'll all be there some day. And the former because those kids will be the ones taking care of your own wrinkly arse in a few years. It's all about karma.

Once the people with kids quit trying to shame me into joining their misery I'll quit being a dick to them.

As a person with a 14 month old, I don't recommend anyone have a kid that isn't prepared for a massive life change. And I begrudge no one for not chose the path of parenting. So... we don't all do it.

I still think it absurd that everyone born between 1946 and 1964 is a "baby boomer." Someone who attained age 18 in 1978 had a drastically different childhood/has a drastically different mindset than someone who turned 18 in 1960.

/Young for a baby boomer/Will probably not get much juicy entitlement goodness in 20 years

cefm:The "Greatest Generation" is the ones who allowed the U.S. to turn into a fraud-factory that strips money away from the least able to defend themselves and heaps it in golden piles on the wealthiest. They oversaw this descent from greatness - I'd call them the "Lost it all at the craps table generation".

I told you that degree was going to be worthless but did you listen? Noooooo.

GoldSpider:SacriliciousBeerSwiller: And the former because those kids will be the ones taking care of your own wrinkly arse in a few years. It's all about karma.

It's more about teaching kids a little perspective, about how good most of them have it compared to other places in the world. Perhaps we can expect to be treated better in our old age if we stopped teaching our kids that the world revolves around them.

We have worse wealth disparity then NIGERIA. Yes, really. We jail more people then CHINA - total, not just per capita. Again, yes, really. We're falling behind in education every year, our infrastructure is poorly maintained and our science committee is packed with people who believe that science are "lies" straight from the pits of hell - and chaired by a freaking Christian Scientist, the people who literally believe that the physical world is an illusion and that everything can be fixed with prayer. Also, the same douchebag behind SOPA.

Perhaps instead of blindly asserting "how good most of them have it compared to other places in the world" we could actually take a look at how far we've allowed things to fall apart - so perhaps we can fix them. I hate to tell you this but by almost any metric you want to pick much of the industrialized world has begun to leave us in the dust. We're still coasting by on the legacy left us by our forefathers... but we're allowing it to rot.

mongbiohazard:That's not a rational explanation for the metrics we see.

I won't disagree that the state of wages and the economy are exacerbating the problem; they are. But credit overreach isn't a new problem. There ought to be a required semester course of financial literacy in high school. Get to them before the predatory banks (with their "free" credit cards) do.

MattStafford:dready zim: it`s because the profit made by a company employing a person working goes up much quicker relative to their wages which is NOT FAIR and PEOPLE DON`T LIKE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY. I have highlighted the main concepts you fail to grasp. Of course the profit does not go up 30x if 30x more work is done, but wages have not really changed relative to inflation for many years now yet profit for companies has greatly increased many times over.

Has this helped you understand?

Suppose the work that used to be done by 30 thirty skilled people can now be done by one person (unskilled) pressing a button. Are you suggesting that the wages for that company should increase?

As technology increases, we will need less workers. We should respond to that not by demanding wage increases (attempting to fight free market forces) but via wealth redistribution (letting the market working, then fixing the problems it causes).

Problems? The problem is we are soon going to have way more people than jobs. Unless you have a socialist solution and find something for these people to do, they will simply crack the skulls of the nearest "have" and start feasting.

Fukuzawa:Girion47: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: We as a society need to stop being such massive pricks to two groups: people with kids, and the elderly. The latter, because "respecting your elders" is a time tested tradition. We'll all be there some day. And the former because those kids will be the ones taking care of your own wrinkly arse in a few years. It's all about karma.

Once the people with kids quit trying to shame me into joining their misery I'll quit being a dick to them.

As a person with a 14 month old, I don't recommend anyone have a kid that isn't prepared for a massive life change. And I begrudge no one for not chose the path of parenting. So... we don't all do it.

Graffito:Fissile: Um, the "Greatest Generation" have mostly gone off to their reward. The youngest are now in their mid 80s, my neighbor joined up when he completed high school in 1945, he's 85 years old.

It's the boomer gen that has destroyed us. The most self-absorbed, narcissistic, egotistical bunch of hypocrites ever.

Well, except for the whiner generation.

You'll have to be more specific. IME, every generation older or younger than the person speaking is the "whiner generation".

Brainsick:GoldSpider: I'm sure I can make allowances for "shiat happens" stuff like medical emergencies (hence why I support single-payer). But if you're asking me to bet against the idea that your average American is stupid and impulsive with money, I'm afraid I can't take that bet.

F*ck you so very much. I'm married, 35, and a U.S. Navy Veteran not receiving assistance; my wife and I both work, I attend a vocational college part time and we make 180% of the poverty line. Know how much that was, last year? $47000. Combined. You rich-fellators make me sick. Physically, disgustingly, ill.

nmemkha:MattStafford: dready zim: it`s because the profit made by a company employing a person working goes up much quicker relative to their wages which is NOT FAIR and PEOPLE DON`T LIKE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY. I have highlighted the main concepts you fail to grasp. Of course the profit does not go up 30x if 30x more work is done, but wages have not really changed relative to inflation for many years now yet profit for companies has greatly increased many times over.

Has this helped you understand?

Suppose the work that used to be done by 30 thirty skilled people can now be done by one person (unskilled) pressing a button. Are you suggesting that the wages for that company should increase?

As technology increases, we will need less workers. We should respond to that not by demanding wage increases (attempting to fight free market forces) but via wealth redistribution (letting the market working, then fixing the problems it causes).

Problems? The problem is we are soon going to have way more people than jobs. Unless you have a socialist solution and find something for these people to do, they will simply crack the skulls of the nearest "have" and start feasting.

At least read what I wrote. We will get to the point where a few people will be able to produce goods for the vast majority, and the vast majority will have no way to compete. The solution should be wealth redistribution, so the vast majority has access to those goods. Not trying to have the vast majority still somehow "contribute" even though they aren't needed or helping in any way.

GoldSpider:mongbiohazard: That's not a rational explanation for the metrics we see.

I won't disagree that the state of wages and the economy are exacerbating the problem; they are. But credit overreach isn't a new problem. There ought to be a required semester course of financial literacy in high school. Get to them before the predatory banks (with their "free" credit cards) do.

John Boehnor gets an erection every time you bring that up in response to the very scary wealth and income trends of America.

Greater financial literacy would always be a good thing.... but it's simply not the cause of our economic problems. It's a distraction many of us have been conditioned to bring up when these serious structural problems we have are explained. It's simply a means to help reinforce the odious "well they should just work harder" nonsense which only serves to dehumanize our fellow Americans and give us an excuse to pretend we're superior people to the average American - which is actually US.

Every time you make an argument like that some obscenely wealthy people are laughing their asses off at having tricked you in to doing some of their dirty work for them for free.

HeartBurnKid:Graffito: Fissile: Um, the "Greatest Generation" have mostly gone off to their reward. The youngest are now in their mid 80s, my neighbor joined up when he completed high school in 1945, he's 85 years old.

It's the boomer gen that has destroyed us. The most self-absorbed, narcissistic, egotistical bunch of hypocrites ever.

Well, except for the whiner generation.

You'll have to be more specific. IME, every generation older or younger than the person speaking is the "whiner generation".

That's kind of my point. Anyone who blames all of their problems on a particular generation is being a self-absorbed, narcissistic, egotistical hypocrite. It's like women who blame all their problems on men (or vice-versa). BTW, would you rather be female or black or gay today or back in the boomer times?Most people do not fall into the category of well-off, straight, white male. Most boomers struggled against prejudice that has largely gone by the wayside for the current generation.

Dusk-You-n-Me:rtaylor92: So now we've got personal savings/IRA's/401k's doing the work of two-parts of the "tri-pod."

According to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, the median household retirement account balance in 2010 for workers between the ages of 55-64 was just $120,000. For people expecting to retire at around age 65, and to live for another 15 years or more, this will provide for only a trivial supplement to Social Security benefits.

And that's for people who actually have a retirement account of some kind. A third of households do not. For these people, their sole retirement income, aside from potential aid from friends and family, comes from Social Security, for which the current average monthly benefit is $1,230.

401Ks are a disaster

Some of us figured out that 401(k)s were a scam years ago. They were going to make it possible for us all to retire very wealthy; we were all going to be multi-millionaires. None of us are. Even if the market had been stable and the economy steadily growing for all the years of my career, the vast majority of people simply did not have the money to make significant contributions. I myself only started making enough money to meet my living expenses and have enough left over for significant 401(k) contribution in the last 15 year of my career. The overwhelming majority of Americans cannot hope to put as much into their retirement plan as I do now. It simply isn't possible. But the economy has not be stable. At least three times in my career, I have seen my plan hammered by severe economic downturns. I have thus far regained the losses, but it took several years to do so. So in reality, I have still lost a lot of money. My 401(k) account lost 40% of its value in the Great Recession. A lot of other people are in the same boat and some will not ever be able to retire until they can (or have no choice but to) accept living their last years in poverty.

I feel so bad for the young folk coming out of school with so much debt and such bleak prospects for finding a job good enough to allow them to do the things that we have so long taken for granted. It's going to be a tough road for so many of them.

Girion47:Sudlow: People of the "Greatest Generation" received back in benefits everything they ever contributed to Social Security within a couple of years. Us Boomers will take longer, but we'll get more back than we put in. You kids are F'd. It takes a while, but all Ponzi Schemes eventually fall apart.

Which is why I'd like to see it ended immediately. Hell take the money I've paid in...whatever. Even require me to withhold 12% of my paycheck(and require the company to give that other 6%) and put it in a retirement fund that I can direct. Just farking end social security.

The problem with social security is that people keep thinking it's a retirement plan.

It isn't, it's an INSURANCE PROGRAM. It isn't just for old people, it's also for the handicapped, disabled, orphans, widows, etc. When my Dad got sick and had to give up his practice SSI saved our asses from horrible poverty.

The point of the program is that the weakest members of society would have food and rent money, that's it. This traditionally includes the elderly.

The Greatest Generation bucked tradition (middle-class wise at least) because they lived through the Depression and WW2 and thus saved money.

Boomers are going to be poor elderly because of the great recession, too much of their "wealth" is in their house, lack of planning, supporting adult children, etc.

MikeyFuccon:Well, yes, it is the "Greatest Generation's" fault---for cursing us with the baby boomers. I'll let historians and child psychologists figure out where the hell they went wrong.

At any rate, those of the Greatest who are still with us are approaching the end of their lives. They're no longer their grandchildren's and great-grandchildren's biggest problem. A far bigger predicament is the Boomers. As soon as they started obtaining political power in any great numbers the boomers started mooting legalizing euthanasia for dear old Mom and Dad. Death with dignity my ass. All the boomers wanted was their inheritance before it all went to the doctor. Now they're screaming bloody murder about

My "dear old Mom and Dad," unrepentant boomers, spent every penny they ever made and then some on themselves. They neglected their own parents till they died, and turned up at the funerals for their payday. (My father's mother had the good sense to leave him nothing. My mother's inheritance, proceeds from the sale of the old family home, went to pay off outstanding debts.) Needless to say, they refused to pay a cent for the university education of any of their children.

The last straw was when my mother openly opposed my marriage to Mrs. Fuccon, accusing her to my face of being a golddigging slut. All my fiancee had done, of course, was get in the way of my mother's own plans to cut the old man loose when he could no longer work and was forced to retire on God alone knows what, he's so far in the hole even now, and come up to Canada to go on Canadian medicare (which she considers a far better scam than US Medicare) and spend the last 25 years of her life having her "perfect son" wait on her hand and foot and help herself to every penny he'dmake over his working life and then some. Dear old Mom thought her "perfect" (read: forever alone) son was rich, and had no intention of letting someone else go near her payday.

Not bad for a kid whose mother was convinced he was mentally ill (I ...

You really need to get some professional help. Your bitterness and stupidity combine to make your prospects near non-existent.

vernonFL:I don't mean to belittle or demean the heroic efforts and sacrifices of those who served in World War II. But the idea that a whole generation deserves credit for what only some did is little more than an attempt to buy glory on the cheap.

Um, really? I'm 40, all of my grandparents lived through the depression and the war by scrimping and saving and sacrificing, life was very hard back then.

To say that only the people actually fighting the war deserve credit is total bullshiat.

So that single mother who lives down the street doing exactly the same thing deserves the same credit, right? Because being poor sucks, but it's not the same as fighting in WWII. They are vastly different.

GoldSpider:mongbiohazard: Greater financial literacy would always be a good thing.... but it's simply not the cause of our economic problems.

It's not THE solution, no, but it's the best we can do, short-term, until our representatives decide to pull their collective heads out of their asses.

Sorry, but no. Our representatives don't have their collective heads up their asses... This IS the plan. We're getting exactly what was intended, and we've been voting for the people who want things to play out this way. Everyone should manage their money the best they can, (big 'old "duh" on that one) but you simply can't manage what you don't have in the first place. What you're suggested is not "the best we can do" - it's really no solution at all.

By continuing the perpetuate the myth that poor people are all simply irresponsible, however, you help to perpetuate the problem. By doing so you're spreading and feeding the lies which are used to help divide us so that the new age robber barons can continue their plunder until nothing is left.

PsiChick:vernonFL: I don't mean to belittle or demean the heroic efforts and sacrifices of those who served in World War II. But the idea that a whole generation deserves credit for what only some did is little more than an attempt to buy glory on the cheap.

Um, really? I'm 40, all of my grandparents lived through the depression and the war by scrimping and saving and sacrificing, life was very hard back then.

To say that only the people actually fighting the war deserve credit is total bullshiat.

So that single mother who lives down the street doing exactly the same thing deserves the same credit, right? Because being poor sucks, but it's not the same as fighting in WWII. They are vastly different.

Having known gold-star wives, I can assure you some of them were single mothers because their husbands never came home.

OMG a whole generation of whiney Emo's.Most of you have no idea of what you're talking about.Neither do I, but I'll throw my two cents in anyway.

Having been born in 1962, I am lumped in with the baby boomers (which is ridiculous because I have NOTHING in common with people born in 1950).I grew up in the '70's which probably means to you disco, funny clothes and lots of drugs.But what you don't know is the entire decade (as I remember it) was one long recession that rivaled the one we're just coming out of.What ended it was Ronald farking Reagan.He did it by spending huge amounts of money on weapons we didn't need or want, all because he hated communists.So by investing money he didn't have in defense, he put us all to work and destroyed the Soviet Union, but he did that by mortgaging YOUR future.

So you now sit there biatching about how bad your lives are because your grandparents are "greedy", not understanding that they've been paying into these funds for 60 or 70 years,and are just getting back what they've been promised, plus, you're sitting in your dorm room or your parent's air conditioned basement watching SpongeBob on a 60" HD LCD while you wait for your PS3 tofinish its latest update so you start another 14 hour Call of Duty session.The generation you complain about could only dream about the standard of living you enjoy which they handed to you on a silver platter.

If it weren't for the "greatest generation", you'd be writing from a German work camp, you ninny. There's nothing wrong with our social programs. They're not even that expensive if we can avoid having a trillion dollar war with 19th century barbarians every few years, and our CEOs can stop thinking they deserve 300 times the average worker's salary.

They grew up without or with little electricity, antibiotics, running water, and television. They built all that, and the nice interstate highway you drive to vacation on. They did all that, and beat Hitler and Stalin and polio and smallpox and tripled world food production just so you could sit in your air conditioned office in an ergonomic leather chair, sipping your mochachino skinny latte typing on your wireless keyboard about things you haven't really thought about.So yeah, grandma and grandpa deserve to retire with a little goddamn dignity and some farking respect you whiny little brat.

kgf:OMG a whole generation of whiney Emo's.Most of you have no idea of what you're talking about.Neither do I, but I'll throw my two cents in anyway.

Having been born in 1962, I am lumped in with the baby boomers (which is ridiculous because I have NOTHING in common with people born in 1950).I grew up in the '70's which probably means to you disco, funny clothes and lots of drugs.But what you don't know is the entire decade (as I remember it) was one long recession that rivaled the one we're just coming out of.What ended it was Ronald farking Reagan.He did it by spending huge amounts of money on weapons we didn't need or want, all because he hated communists.So by investing money he didn't have in defense, he put us all to work and destroyed the Soviet Union, but he did that by mortgaging YOUR future.

So you now sit there biatching about how bad your lives are because your grandparents are "greedy", not understanding that they've been paying into these funds for 60 or 70 years,and are just getting back what they've been promised, plus, you're sitting in your dorm room or your parent's air conditioned basement watching SpongeBob on a 60" HD LCD while you wait for your PS3 tofinish its latest update so you start another 14 hour Call of Duty session.The generation you complain about could only dream about the standard of living you enjoy which they handed to you on a silver platter.

kgf:OMG a whole generation of whiney Emo's.Most of you have no idea of what you're talking about.Neither do I, but I'll throw my two cents in anyway.

Having been born in 1962, I am lumped in with the baby boomers (which is ridiculous because I have NOTHING in common with people born in 1950).I grew up in the '70's which probably means to you disco, funny clothes and lots of drugs.But what you don't know is the entire decade (as I remember it) was one long recession that rivaled the one we're just coming out of.What ended it was Ronald farking Reagan.He did it by spending huge amounts of money on weapons we didn't need or want, all because he hated communists.So by investing money he didn't have in defense, he put us all to work and destroyed the Soviet Union, but he did that by mortgaging YOUR future.

So you now sit there biatching about how bad your lives are because your grandparents are "greedy", not understanding that they've been paying into these funds for 60 or 70 years,and are just getting back what they've been promised, plus, you're sitting in your dorm room or your parent's air conditioned basement watching SpongeBob on a 60" HD LCD while you wait for your PS3 tofinish its latest update so you start another 14 hour Call of Duty session.The generation you complain about could only dream about the standard of living you enjoy which they handed to you on a silver platter.

As per my comment above, Reagan and Bush 1 and Bush 2 spent a lot of money they didn't have. The very troubling thing is the young generation in this country won't be able to pay off the national debt because of

PsiChick:vernonFL: I don't mean to belittle or demean the heroic efforts and sacrifices of those who served in World War II. But the idea that a whole generation deserves credit for what only some did is little more than an attempt to buy glory on the cheap.

Um, really? I'm 40, all of my grandparents lived through the depression and the war by scrimping and saving and sacrificing, life was very hard back then.

To say that only the people actually fighting the war deserve credit is total bullshiat.

So that single mother who lives down the street doing exactly the same thing deserves the same credit, right? Because being poor sucks, but it's not the same as fighting in WWII. They are vastly different.

I think you missed the point. WWII was a national effort, unlike the wars of today. During WWII life was harder for everyone. The folks on the front lines were being supported meaningfully by the folks back home. Shortages were rampant, rationing was the norm. Everyone pulled together and worked harder across all of society - in fact, major womens' lib gains were made because the shortage of men (because so many had been sent to fight) go so bad that it meant many employers were finally forced to start considering hiring women. Sure, the folks back home weren't getting shot at but pain was clearly shared across society in many ways and Goldberg's assertion to the contrary is horrendously idiotic.

Fast forward to today, though, and our modern wars are being fought in ways to intentionally avoid letting Americans feel the pain. We're not rationing and working more to support our troops, we're not seeing services curtailed as the war goes on.... instead we're deficit funding the wars so that current voters won't be as interested in holding our government accountable for it. This is the kind of warfighting we're engaged in NOW, so schmucks like Jonah Goldberg are seeing our past wars through the same rose colored glasses.

TheShavingofOccam123:PsiChick: vernonFL: I don't mean to belittle or demean the heroic efforts and sacrifices of those who served in World War II. But the idea that a whole generation deserves credit for what only some did is little more than an attempt to buy glory on the cheap.

Um, really? I'm 40, all of my grandparents lived through the depression and the war by scrimping and saving and sacrificing, life was very hard back then.

To say that only the people actually fighting the war deserve credit is total bullshiat.

So that single mother who lives down the street doing exactly the same thing deserves the same credit, right? Because being poor sucks, but it's not the same as fighting in WWII. They are vastly different.

Having known gold-star wives, I can assure you some of them were single mothers because their husbands never came home.

No, I mean the one in 2013, who is doing exactly the same things people did during the Depression. Because stunningly enough, being poor != trying to liberate Europe.

mongbiohazard:By continuing the perpetuate the myth that poor people are all simply irresponsible, however, you help to perpetuate the problem. By doing so you're spreading and feeding the lies which are used to help divide us so that the new age robber barons can continue their plunder until nothing is left.

And perpetuating the myth that people have little to no control over their own situations discourages them from taking ownership of their own lives.

I agree that voters need to be better educated about the economy and national budget. However pretending that there aren't a lot of people who have no idea how to manage their personal finances doesn't solve anything at all.

GoldSpider:It's rich people's fault that the average household credit card debt is in the neighborhood of $6,000?

Well, if those "job creators" would pay a living wage, or even just keep track with inflation some folks wouldn't have to go into debt when they get sick or lose their jobs or have an accident or need reconstructive dental work*...

My wages have been frozen for five years, now. Do you suppose my cost of living has, as well?

kgf:you're sitting in your dorm room or your parent's air conditioned basement watching SpongeBob on a 60" HD LCD while you wait for your PS3 tofinish its latest update so you start another 14 hour Call of Duty session.

And your generation reaped the benefits of WWII - including the socialist-level metric shiatton of cash infused into those industries by the US government - while cutting ever-more the government's ability to pay for it, keeping more of your income for yourselves. No, the Greatest Generation understood that hard decisions require hard work - and if that work is government, that means high taxes - and rolled up their sleeves to do it.

You Boomers relaxed tax law, regulations, the social safety net, and paid yourselves higher and higher wages (at the expense of line-workers) while removing yourselves further and further from the actual line workers and patting yourselves on the back for being more and more sociopathic (who cares if a million people lose their jobs so long as we make 5% more this quarter). You've gotten your pet philosophy (trickle-down) settled as a matter of law while erasing all of the good things a Labor party can get done and blacklisting anyone who disagrees.

Boomers turned the counterculture into Brooks-Brothers-wearing yuppies. Fark all of you who refuse to pay higher taxes - your parents won a way of life for you to live, which you royally farked up, and your kids won't be able to cover your mistakes.

mongbiohazard:I think you missed the point. WWII was a national effort, unlike the wars of today. During WWII life was harder for everyone. The folks on the front lines were being supported meaningfully by the folks back home. Shortages were rampant, rationing was the norm. Everyone pulled together and worked harder across all of society - in fact, major womens' lib gains were made because the shortage of men (because so many had been sent to fight) go so bad that it meant many employers were finally forced to start considering hiring women. Sure, the folks back home weren't getting shot at but pain was clearly shared across society in many ways and Goldberg's assertion to the contrary is horrendously idiotic.

Fast forward to today, though, and our modern wars are being fought in ways to intentionally avoid letting Americans feel the pain. We're not rationing and working more to support our troops, we're not seeing services curtailed as the war goes on.... instead we're deficit funding the wars so that current voters won't be as interested in holding our government accountable for it. This is the kind of warfighting we're engaged in NOW, so schmucks like Jonah Goldberg are seeing our past wars through the same rose colored glasses.

That's not what I'm arguing--I'm arguing that treating people who lived through the Depression like the people who actually did help liberate Europe is insane. Praising their support is good, but the Depression? Yeah, that's a seperate topic. Not better or worse, just different, and they need to be treated differently.

Personal debt actually took a nosedive after the 2008 crash. One good lesson Americans seemed to have learned is the risk associated with all that debt hanging over their heads when economic conditions worsen.

What we really have to worry about is income and wealth. We simply cannot continue to impoverish everyone in the country except for a small societal elite and still expect the economy to function properly. Every time I talk to someone who is still stuck on supply-side economics I ask them, "If the consumers have less money every year - and we only concern ourselves with making sure the rich have all the money they need - then who will supply the demand the economy needs in the future?"

I've yet to hear an answer back which doesn't blatantly ignore the subtance of the question. I just get screeds about the supply side of our economy, like they used up all their mental power understanding half of the economy (supply) and have nothing left to even try and consider the other half (demand). They also always seem to ignore the fact that the demand side of the economy - the consumers - also provide supply as well.

Those wages people get shouldn't just keep them with just enough food and shelter to physically survive... The poor and middle class (middle class primarily) uses what they can save to start new businesses, ensuring competition and changing the market's landscape... Small companies start, become big, knock out the big guys and then take the place of the old big companies - only to be supplanted in time by another young challenger. It's a cycle of life which is threatened by falling wages. If you have a great idea but no money in the bank to bring it to fruition then we lose that competition, we lose that innovation, and we're stuck with slowly consolidating oligopolies protected from competition.

MattStafford:nmemkha: MattStafford: dready zim: it`s because the profit made by a company employing a person working goes up much quicker relative to their wages which is NOT FAIR and PEOPLE DON`T LIKE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY. I have highlighted the main concepts you fail to grasp. Of course the profit does not go up 30x if 30x more work is done, but wages have not really changed relative to inflation for many years now yet profit for companies has greatly increased many times over.

Has this helped you understand?

Suppose the work that used to be done by 30 thirty skilled people can now be done by one person (unskilled) pressing a button. Are you suggesting that the wages for that company should increase?

As technology increases, we will need less workers. We should respond to that not by demanding wage increases (attempting to fight free market forces) but via wealth redistribution (letting the market working, then fixing the problems it causes).

Problems? The problem is we are soon going to have way more people than jobs. Unless you have a socialist solution and find something for these people to do, they will simply crack the skulls of the nearest "have" and start feasting.

At least read what I wrote. We will get to the point where a few people will be able to produce goods for the vast majority, and the vast majority will have no way to compete. The solution should be wealth redistribution, so the vast majority has access to those goods. Not trying to have the vast majority still somehow "contribute" even though they aren't needed or helping in any way.

The "something for them to do" comment was not just for some faux societal contribution to appease the "wealth creators". Rather, it was a pragmatic assertion that idle people are bad for a functioning society. Even if their basic needs are being met, without the carrot of upward mobility people will have less incentive to educate and better themselves and therefore improve the society in which they live.

I agree with you that we are going to need to embrace socialism or face a period of global unrest. Even a cursory glance back at history shows us that allowing a tiny percentage of the population to sequester the majority of the resources, to the determinant of masses, is not a path to long-term stability.